NFL Divisonal Playoffs - Saturday, 15 January 2005 (Jets, Steelers, Rams, Falcons)

[Wristpin]

"In all the anlaysis of tomorrow's Pats-Colts game I have yet to see one show break down the Pats offense vs. the Colts defense."

The Pats average 34 points a game against the greatest team to ever grace a field.

[rdb3]

dubyaismypresident: But do the Steelers and Falcons cover the points? 9 and 7 respectively.

Me: No for the Steelers. Yes for the Falcons.

---

Steelers 20, Jets 17. Steelers did not cover.

Falcons 47, Rams 17. Falcons covered big time. Two for two ain't bad.

Now for today's games. Philly is giving 8 to the Vikes. Philadelphia will cover. The Vikings secondary is sub-par and very exploitable for McNabb, even without Owens.

The Patriots are 1.5 point favorites. Give it to the Pats. Outdoor conditions will slow down the Colts high-powered offense. The Patriots running game will also keep Manning on the sidelines. In this post I predicted a Pats victory by the score of 23-17.

Let the games begin!

[AlGone2001]

The Falcons sure covered that seven point spread, huh?

[csvset]

I missed the Jets/Steelers game due to work. Despite knowing the outcome of the game, it was worth reading the posts. You could sense the excitement.

The thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat. Job well done FR.

[CounterCounterCulture]

New thread...
NFL Divisonal Playoffs - Sunday, 16 January 2005 (Vikings, Eagles, Colts, Patriots)

[NeoCaveman]

Well here's what I did yesterday

Parlay (3 Teams) 01/15/05 15:28 ET
25.00/54.62 (paid 79.62) Result: Wager Won
Jets(NewYork) 17
Steelers(Pittsburgh) 20 01/15/05 (16:40 ET)
Over 35

Jets(NewYork) 17
Steelers(Pittsburgh) 20 01/15/05 (16:40 ET)
Steelers(Pittsburgh) -460

Rams(StLouis) 17
Falcons(Atlanta) 47 01/15/05 (20:25 ET)
Falcons(Atlanta) -270

[Chunga]

...my (very low) opinion about Vick..."

Right. The Falcon's 10-3 regular-season record and 30 point playoff victory advancing to the NFC Championship game are the result of smoke-and-mirrors; and that slow-footed, weak-armed scab doesn't even belong in the league.

[freedumb2003]

We have seen running backs that can throw the ball before -- remember Kordell Stewart?

Vick is a medicore+ player on a mediocre+ team in a midiocre- to very bad division and conference.

I give Vick 1 to 2 years before either his clock gets cleaned and is career is over or the league adjsust to him (wait for next week for that) and he follows Kordell Stewart into oblivion.

There is a reason they don't run the Option in the pros.

[Chunga]

Sure. Vick's been in the league for 4 years, which is certainly not enough time for pro coaches and players to adjust to any player's style...and during that time, Vick's record as a starter is 21-11-1, but as you say that's only due to the lack of time the league has had to adapt.

Regardless, it appears you've changed your opinion here within one reply. You first stated that you had a "very low" opinion of Vick. To have a "low" opinion of someone within a relative setting involving competition is to consider him substandard in relation to his peers; to have a "very low" opinion of someone is to consider him to be among the very worst people engaged within his field of endeavor. To have a "very low" opinion of an NFL player would surely place him among the very worst players in the league.

You have now pronounced his status to be "mediocre." As such, your opinion of him has obviously been reconsidered, and it is no longer "very low"; it is "middling."

You're headed in the right direction.

[freedumb2003]

I was using very low in the colloquial, not in the precise form you use. To tell you the truth, this is the first time I have heard of a specific meaning of "very low" although your take of "mediocre" was my mis-statement.

Very low, as I meant it, means he is not a good quarterback. I haven;t changed my opinion of him at all -- don't let my somewhat imprecise word selection suggest otherwise.

[eddie willers]

I haven;t changed my opinion of him at all

You will be forced too, as he is actually a very good quarterback with a rocket (untamed as for now) for an arm.

He had to learn a new system this year but, even as he struggled, he continued to WIN. Nobody thought Terry Bradshaw was a good quarterback...until 4 Super Bowl wins made that a pretty silly argument.

[Chunga]

How can a football league, taken as a whole, not adapt to a quarterback's style and talents within a 4-year period? How can the quarterback amass a 21-11-1 record within that time frame if he isn't a "good quarterback," especially considering the low opinion of the quarterback's team by the holder of the opinion of the quarterback?

In other words, if the Falcons are such a bad team, why is their record 21-11-1 when Vick starts over the last four years? Is Vick's record an accident? If his record is a result of other teams not adapting, is this due to their lack of exposure to Vick? No; he's in his fourth year. Is it a result of other teams being unable, by-and-large, to adapt to his style, due to his superior athletic ability and lack of orthodoxy? If so, isn't this the way superior athletes of many stripes attain greatness?

If Vick's primary strength is speed and quickness, does this make him a less effective quarterback than in-the-pocket quarterbacks if his strengths lead to more victories? As a point guard, was Magic Johnson inferior to Doc Rivers because he was taller and scored more points (we all know a point guard's job is to distribute the ball)? Are pole vaulters utilizing the Fosbury Flop inferior to those vaulters competing prior to the Flop's advent because the maneuver led to an obvious advantage to vaulters utilizing it? As a leadoff hitter, was Bobby Bonds inferior to Jerry Royster because he had more power?

It's a given that Philadelphia is probably a superior team to Atlanta; but every year, every team excepting one is consigned to also-ran status. If the Falcons don't win it all, it won't be due to a lack of excellence on the part of Vick...it will be due to the superiority of the talent and effort of another team.

[dannyboy72]

If I was Matrz, I wouldn't make any major purchases in STL. They made it to the playoffs on a fluke and now they've gotten their hats handed to them in front of millions of viewers. Georgia's not stupid and she knows that her team has gotten progressively worse under Martz.

He has no discipline, his team is in disarray and they're probably going to have a lot of guys jump ship, not to mention that normally loyal STL fans are all calling for his head. Martz is toast by end of Feb. If not, I'll be back rooting for my childhood favorite Steelers.

[freedumb2003]

Running QBs in the NFL have a limited life span and limited ability.

Vick had QB ratings of:

2004 78.1
2003 69
2002 81.6 (his best year, still one of the worst in the league)
2001 62.7


His overall rating is 76.9.

These ratings are, in a word, terrible. This is also proof he is a running back that passes the ball. Kordell Stewart all over again, Old Kordell was in the league as a QB for 5 years or so and they kept trying to stick with him, before realizing the NFL isn't the place for Wishbone-T QBs.

[CounterCounterCulture]

I don't put much stock in these "ratings"

[freedumb2003]

Maybe they aren't right on, but as a rough approximation -- certainly as a way to evaluate QBs against each other-- they work OK.

Vick is near the bottom of the NFL in every year he has played. He is one of the better running backs in the league, but that shouldn't be what an NFL QB does.

[Chunga]

The most significant statistic in football is each team's won-loss record. Wins are team victories; losses are team failures.

Your posts about Vick (terrible ratings, flawed style, poor quarterback) lead logically to the conclusion that the Falcons are winning in spite of Vick; unfortunately, the logic is tortured by your claim that the Falcons are a mediocre team.

Remember, we're talking about a competitive sport; hence, the notions of "good" and "bad" and "mediocre" are rendered relative by the fact of competition. If Vick is mediocre and the Falcons are mediocre, yet have amassed an overwhelmingly superior regular season record and are among the four teams left in the playoffs, one might conclude that the league itself, in whole, is bad; in order for the Falcons to have risen to "mediocre" status, they will have had to have risen above the "bad," as it is the only subjective designation above which the "mediocre" can rise. "The mediocre" resides, by definition, above "the bad" and below "the good." If the Falcons are merely mediocre, the rules of the NFL designate that there can only be the possibility of three "good" teams in the league this year, as the rules are structered so the best teams will usually rise to the level of the playoffs. If the Falcons are merely mediocre, every team not ascending to their status in the playoffs must either be "mediocre" or "bad" teams, and only three teams hold the possibility of being relatively "good"; of course, using this model, they could all be merely "mediocre."

But this cannot be. Since the nature of the quality of the participants in a sports league is determined by competition, the notions of "good," mediocre" and "bad" teams are derived from a subjective and comparative process. The Falcons must be better than at least one of the other teams making the playoffs this year, the Rams; and although their regular-season record was 8-8, they were among the best teams in the league. If A is better than B and B is better than C, then A is better than C. If A is the Falcons, B is the Rams and C is the other teams in the NFC minus Philadelphia, then the Falcons are better than the rest of the teams in the NFC minus Philadelphia, because this is how the postseason is structured.

So, we can rightly sat that we have the "best teams in the league" and the "worst teams in the league" and "everything in between." These designations make no sense if we separate them from notions of "good, mediocre and bad," because the nature of competition in a sports league introduces the notion of relativity giving rise to the commonly-held understandings of these terms.

Due to their regular-season record (especially in comparison to the records of the other teams in the NFC and their status as a participant in the NFC playoff game) any rational opinion of the NFC and the Falcons will entail the belief that they are, at least this year, a "good" team; they are not "mediocre," as they are one of four teams left in the playoffs. Therefore, if Michael Vick is a "mediocre" quarterback, it is the Falcons as a team who are winning in spite of his mediocrity, and this has been some incredible effort, as their record is outstanding by any measure.

Even this reasoning is preferable to your notion that both Vick and the Falcons are "mediocre," because these designations can't rationally co-exist considering their status this year. We have the fact of their record and their rise to the NFC Championship Game. You could believe that the Falcons are "good" and Vick is "mediocre" or that the Falcons are "good" and Vick is "bad" (in both cases with the Falcons winning in spite of him); you could believe that Vick is "good" and the Falcons are "mediocre" or that Vick is good and the Falcons are "bad" (in both cases with the Falcons winning due to Vick and in spite of his team); or you could believe that both Vick and the Falcons are "good" according to separate criteria. All of the above are possibilities. What isn't possible is for either the Falcons and Vick to be either both "mediocre" or "bad," because relative to the competition we see this as an impossibility. Somewhere and somehow one or the other, or both, must be measured as "good" relative to the competition; and "the competition" is the entire nature of the entire NFL.

[freedumb2003]

NFC=Really Bad
Falcons=Bad
Therefore
Falcons=Better than rest of NFC
<>(Falcons=Good)
Vick as a part of Falcons<>(Vick=Good)

The 2 best teams in the NFL are playing right now.

Vick stinks and he'll be out of Football inside of 4 years.

[Chunga]

"NFC=Really Bad
Falcons=Bad"

The Falcons were 3-1 against AFC teams this year.

"Vick stinks"

Vick wins.
Look it up.